DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendments, filed 3/16/2026, to claims 1, 16 acknowledged by Examiner. Additionally, applicant cancelled claims 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-19.
Claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 13-16, 20 are now pending.
The drawing objections based on the specification issues withdrawn.
The drawing objections relating to any of the cancelled claims 3-5, 8-9, 12, 17-19 withdrawn as the claims are cancelled.
The drawing objection to claim 16 withdrawn in accordance with the amendments and the provided drawings.
Previous 112b rejection of claim 19 withdrawn as claim 19 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new reference Summit is provided into the rejection as necessitated by the amendments to address the new claim limitation to which Applicant’s arguments pertains.
Examiner’s Notes
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/16/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 10-11, 13, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fried (US 12036142 B1) in view of Stafford (US 20200179154 A1) and Summit (US 20100262054 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fried discloses a pediatric positioning apparatus (Figure 35, see Abstract wherein this is a body brace thus positioning a body in certain position, capable of being worn by a pediatric user, Col. 14 lines 33-35, size is variable for the invention), comprising
a support vest (Fig. 35, entire vest shown) comprising
a vest posterior portion 60/90 (Fig. 35) comprising a network of rigid support members 90 (Fig. 35 for a perspective view of supports 90, Col. 22 lines 46-43, the support members of the invention are formed of rigid orthoplastic struts) and a vest posterior portion cover 60 (Fig. 42-43, covers the outer side of the body),
a pair of waist supports 94A/94B attached to the vest posterior portion 60 (Fig. 35) and configured to wrap around at least 50% of a waist circumference of a patient (See Fig. 35 wherein this these supports combined wrap entirely around a waist in conjunction with vest posterior portion 60), and
a pair of anterior straps 100 attached to the vest posterior portion 60 and configured to pass over shoulders and chest of a patient (Col. 31 lines 1-21, straps 100 are adjustable and disclosed to go over the chest of user, being adjustable are capable of passing over the shoulders of the user if already passing under the shoulders) and secure to the waist supports 94A/94B (Fig. 35, attach to the connecting member 98 which is attached to the waist supports 94A/94B, thus is indirectly secured to the waist supports 94A/94B).
Fried does not disclose a neck support comprising a posterior neck strap, and an anterior support jaw comprising a superior jaw arc comprising a chin contact portion and an inferior jaw arc comprising a chest contact portion, the anterior support jaw being rigid and configured to contact a chin and a chest of a patient such that the anterior support jaw supports the chin of the patient in a ventral direction and prevents contact between the chin and the chest of the patient.
However, Stafford teaches a neck support 10 comprising a posterior neck strap 140/142 (Fig. 1, straps 140/142 extend posteriorly), and
an anterior support jaw 12/14 comprising a superior jaw arc 14 comprising a chin contact portion 22 and an inferior jaw arc 12 comprising a chest contact portion 20 (Fig. 1-2),
the anterior support jaw 12/14 being rigid (see [0008]) and configured to contact a chin and a chest of a patient (Fig. 6) such that the anterior support jaw supports the chin of the patient in a ventral direction and prevents contact between the chin and the chest of the patient (Fig. 6).
The support vest of Fried is a body brace for providing support to a body of the user which includes spinal stabilization (Fried Col. 1 lines 40-41); the neck support of Stafford teaches for further supporting the body part of the head when needing spinal stabilization (Stafford [0009]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have utilized both the vest of Fried and the neck support of Stafford in combination for a user who has both head/neck and chest/abdomen support needs for the shared purpose of spinal stabilization/bracing (Fried Col. 1 lines 40-41; Stafford [0009], examiner notes the combination in here includes thus the neck support 10 structures of the support jaw 12/14 as well as the occipital support 16).
Fried/Stafford does not disclose wherein the network of rigid support members is in the form of a grid that includes overlapping rigid support members.
However, Summit teaches an analogous support vest 451 (Fig. 38), having an analogous vest posterior portion comprising a network of rigid support members 455/457 (Fig. 38 and [0096], back side of the brace is shown in Fig. 38, rigidly restricts the back side of the vest), wherein network of rigid support members 455/457 is in the form of a grid that includes overlapping rigid support members 455/457 (Fig. 38 and [0096] horizontal and vertical members 455/457 are overlapping into a grid form).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the network of rigid support members of Fried to be in the form of a grid that includes overlapping rigid support members as taught by Summit in order to provide improved back stabilization as the grid provides improved flexion restriction (Summit [0096]).
Regarding claim 2, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Fried further discloses the rigid support members 90 are formed of a plastic (Col. 22 lines 46-43, the support members of the invention are formed of rigid orthoplastic struts).
Regarding claim 6, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Fried further discloses wherein the vest posterior portion cover 60 is formed of a textile (Col. 27 lines 24-50, cover 60 may be formed with a “fabric, neoprene, or synthetic cover”, thus being formed of a textile being a neoprene).
Regarding claim 7, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 6 above.
Fried further discloses the textile is a synthetic textile formed of a polymer (Col. 27 lines 24-50, cover 60 may be formed with a “fabric, neoprene, or synthetic cover”, wherein neoprene is a synthetic polymer textile).
Regarding claim 10, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Fried further discloses a waist belt 98 attached to the pair of waist supports 94A/94B (Col. 28 lines 35-40, abdomen connecting member 98 can be called a waist belt, see further Col. 31 lines 19-21) and configured such that the waist belt 98 and pair of waist supports 94A/94B together wrap around an entirety of a waist circumference of a patient (Fig. 35).
Regarding claim 11, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 10 above.
Fried further discloses wherein the waist belt 98 is attached to the pair of waist supports 94A/94B using hook-and-loop fasteners (Fig. 18 shows the abdomen connecting member 98 according to linkage block 42 using hook and loop fasteners for connecting the ends of the waist supports, Col. 17 lines 10-20).
Regarding claim 13, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Stafford further teaches the anterior support jaw is formed of a plastic (see [0023] components of the head support include plastics).
Regarding claim 16, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Stafford further teaches a posterior head support 16 attached to the neck support 10 (Fig. 1, occipital support 16 attached to the chin support 20 via posterior straps 144, thus attached and a part of the neck support 10), the posterior head support 16 configured to provide support to a head of a patient in a dorsal direction (Fig. 1, supports the back side/occipital of the head being the dorsal direction of support) (see claim 1 combination).
Regarding claim 20, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 10 above.
Fried in view of Stafford further discloses wherein the pediatric positioning apparatus is devoid of electronic sensors (neither Fried nor Stafford disclose any electronic sensors within their devices, thus being devoid of electronic sensors).
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fried (US 12036142 B1) in view of Stafford (US 20200179154 A1) and Summit (US 20100262054 A1), in further view of Calco (US 20140012172 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit discloses the invention of claim 1 above.
Stafford is silent on wherein the posterior neck strap is formed of a textile.
However, Calco is a fully analogous neck support 50 (Fig. 5A-5B) comprising an analogous posterior neck strap 60 (Fig. 1A) wherein the posterior neck strap is formed of a textile (see [0026, 0038] formed of nylon to enable a unitary flexible construction, and contouring with the neck of the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have made the posterior neck strap of Stafford combined with Fried formed of nylon (thus being a textile) as taught by Calco in order to enable a unitary flexible construction and contouring with the neck of the user (Calco [0026-0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Fried in view of Stafford and Summit and Calco discloses the invention of claim 14 above.
Calco teaches wherein the textile is a synthetic textile formed of a polymer (Calco [0026, 0038] nylon is a synthetic textile formed of a polymer).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20100063433 A1
US 20170325990 A1
US 3331367 A
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN S ALBERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rachael Bredefeld can be reached at (571) 270-5237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KEVIN S ALBERS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786
Prosecution Insights